DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species (C), in the reply filed on 2/25/2021 is acknowledged.
Claims 73-74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Claim Objections
Claims 72 and 75 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 72 and 75, Applicant provides the following diagram,
PNG
media_image1.png
289
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. without providing the definition of variables Q, X20, X21, X22, Z4, and Z5 of the structural formula. The diagram is unnecessary because the structural formula LA’ and Ly are provided below the diagram. It is suggested to delete the diagram. Alternatively, provide definitions of the variables in the diagram. It should be noted that the withdrawn claim 73 also has similar diagram. It is suggested to delete the diagram from claim 73.
In claims 72 and 75, Applicant reciters Pt(LA’)(Ly) and claims structural formulas of the ligand Ly. Each structural formula has LA. LA’ of the Pt(LA’)(Ly) and LA of the structural formula should be same. It is suggested to use the same terminology LA (or LA’).
In claim 75, Applicant recites “LA9-(Ri)(Rj)(Rk)(Rm)- LA31-(Ri)(Rj)(Rk)(Rm), … LA35-(Ri)(Rj)(Rk)(Rm)- LA42-(Ri)(Rj)(Rk)(Rm); …” Applicant also claims structure of LA including at least LA9
PNG
media_image2.png
204
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The Rm in all the formulas should be amended to Lm, because there is no Rm in each of structural formula.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 71, Applicant recites “General Substituents as defined herein; …” However, there is no structural formula or name of the General Substituents defined. It is unclear which substituents can be the General Substituents.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the General Substituents are same as the list of the Markush substituents for the RA, RB, RC, and RD of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1).
Regarding claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79, Lee discloses a compound represented by Formula 1, wherein the ring CY1 can be azadibenzoselenophene and used for an organic light emitting device ([0007], [0009]) and exemplifies Compound 54 ([0184]).
PNG
media_image3.png
383
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 54, the azadibenzoselenophene ring at the position corresponding to CY1 of Formula 1 of Lee bonds to the neighboring atoms as represented by Formula CY1-4
PNG
media_image4.png
166
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I of the instant claims; however, Lee does teach that the ring CY1 can bond to the neighboring atoms as represented by Formula CY1-5
PNG
media_image5.png
136
185
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0122]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 54 of Lee by substituting the bonding positions of the azadibenzoselenophene ring at the position corresponding to CY1 from
PNG
media_image4.png
166
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
to
PNG
media_image5.png
136
185
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the bonding positions would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of exemplified bonding positions of the ring CY1 in the disclosure. The selection of
PNG
media_image5.png
136
185
media_image5.png
Greyscale
would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
PNG
media_image6.png
313
573
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Lee, meeting all the limitations of claims 62-64, 67, 69-72, and 75.
Lee does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising the Modified compound of Lee; however, Lee does teach that the compound can be used for an organic light emitting device ([0007]). Lee teaches the structure of the OLED device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole compound CBP as a host, the compound of Lee as a dopant), and a cathode ([0332]-[0334]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lee by incorporating it into the emissive layer with a host compound of CBP of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of dopants of Lee in the OLED of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Lee comprising an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Modified compound of Lee as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 78-79.
Regarding claim 68, the Modified compound of Lee reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The bridge group at the position corresponding to T1 of Formula 1 of Lee is amine group which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Lee does teach that T1 can be -O- ([0020]) and exemplifies Compound 34 ([0184]), wherein the structure at T1 is -O-.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lee by substituting the amine group at the position corresponding to T1 of Formula 1 of Lee with -O-, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the amine with -O- at the position corresponding to T1 of Formula 1 of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Lee (2) which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Lee except the -N(Ph)- at the position corresponding to L1 of Applicant’s Formula I is -O-.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 77, the Modified compound of Lee reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The compound does not comprise any deuterium atom; however, Lee does teach that the substituents R1 to R4 of the Formula 1 of Lee can be deuterium ([0025]).
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lee by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R1 to R4 of Formula 1 of Lee with deuterium, as taught by Lee and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to R1 to R4 of Formula 1 of Lee with deuterium would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Kim which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Lee except all the hydrogen atom at the positions corresponding to R1 to R4 of Formula 1 of Lee are substituted by deuterium.
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1, hereafter Kai).
Regarding claim 80, the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee reads on all the features of claim 78 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Modified compound of Lee as a dopant), and a cathode.
The host compound CBP does not read on the limitation of claim 80.
Kai discloses an organic light-emitting device wherein the emission layer comprises indolocarbazole derivative compound (formulas (1)-(3) in [0019]). The exemplified compound of Kai (Compound (3) in [0038]).
PNG
media_image7.png
288
572
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kai teaches that the organic light-emitting device of the invention comprising the indolocarbazole derivative compound provides high efficiency with good driving stability ([0018]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee by substituting the host compound of the emissive layer with the Compound (3) of Kai, as taught by Kai.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency with good driving stability, as taught by Kai.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Lee as modified by Kai comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound (3) of Kai as a host, Modified compound of Lee as a dopant), and a cathode.
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180179238 A1) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75, and 78-79 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 81, the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee reads on all the features of claim 78 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Modified compound of Lee as a dopant), and a cathode.
Lee does not disclose a specific flexible display device comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. flexible display device) comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee by incorporating it into a flexible display device, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device, based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Lee.
Claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1, hereafter Choi) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697, hereafter Acharya).
Regarding claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79, Choi discloses a compound represented by Formula 1 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0007], [0009]) and exemplifies Compound 13 ([0198]).
PNG
media_image8.png
286
682
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Choi exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 13 in Table 3, [0441]-[0443]), comprising an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Compound 13 as a dopant), and a cathode.
In the Compound 13, the pendant phenyl groups substituted to the rings CY1 and CY4 are not substituted (see the positions pointed by arrows in the figure above); however, Choi does teach that R14 of the ring CY1 can be a substituted C6-C60 aryl group ([0025]), wherein the substituent can be a alkyl ([0033]), and R4 can be a substituted C6-C60 aryl group ([0025]), wherein the substituent can be a C1-C60 alkyl group ([0033]). Choi exemplifies t-butyl group ([0198] see examples including at least Compound 15).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 13 of Choi by substituting the pendant phenyl group substituted to each ring CY1 and CY4 with para t-butyl groups, as taught by Choi.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified substituents at the corresponding positions in the rings CY1 and CY4 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Choi.
PNG
media_image9.png
191
757
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In the Modified compound of Choi, the ring CY1 and CY4 are each azadibenzoselenophene, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 1; however, Choi does teach that CY1 can be Formula A1-2
PNG
media_image10.png
107
141
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein X11 can be -Se- and CY4 can be a carbocyclic or heterocyclic group ([0017], [0021]).
Acharya teaches that selenium has larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability than sulfur such that band gap and optical properties can be tuned by replacing sulfur with selenium (page 693, col. 1, lines 10-16).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Choi by substituting the sulfur atoms of the azadibenzoselenophene rings with selenium, as taught by Choi and Acharya.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability, and tunability of band gap and optical properties, based on the teaching of Acharya.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Both S and Se are alternative options for the variable X11 of Formula A1-2. Substitution of S with Se would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image11.png
196
711
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya having the identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 13, meeting all the limitations of claims 62-64, 67-72, and 75-76.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya comprising an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 78-79.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claim 77, the Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The compound does not comprise any deuterium atom; however, Choi does teach that the substituents of the rings CY1 to CY4 of the Formula 1 of Choi (i.e. R groups) can be deuterium ([0025]).
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya by substituting the hydrogen atoms of the rings CY1 to CY4 of Formula 1 of Choi with deuterium, as taught by Choi and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents of the rings CY1 to CY4 of Formula 1 of Choi with deuterium would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya and Kim which has identical structure as the Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya except all the hydrogen atoms substituted to the rings CY1 to CY4 of Formula 1 of Choi are substituted by deuterium.
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1).
Regarding claim 80, the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 78 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode.
The host compound CBP does not read on the limitation of claim 80.
Kai discloses an organic light-emitting device wherein the emission layer comprises indolocarbazole derivative compound (formulas (1)-(3) in [0019]). The exemplified compound of Kai (Compound (3) in [0038]).
PNG
media_image7.png
288
572
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kai teaches that the organic light-emitting device of the invention comprising the indolocarbazole derivative compound provides high efficiency with good driving stability ([0018]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya by substituting the host compound of the emissive layer with the Compound (3) of Kai, as taught by Kai.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency with good driving stability, as taught by Kai.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya and Kai comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound (3) of Kai as a host, Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode.
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0074457 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-64, 67-72, 75-76, and 78-79 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012).
Regarding claim 81, the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 78 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Compound of Choi as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode.
Choi does not disclose a specific flexible display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. flexible display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Choi as modified by Acharya.
Claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78-79, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2009/0079340 A1, hereafter Kinoshita) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697).
Regarding claims 62-65, 67, 70-71, 78-79, and 81, Kinoshita discloses a compound represented by Formula 1 and used for an organic light emitting device ([0007], [0008]). Kinoshita teaches subgenus Formula 2 ([0030]) and exemplifies Compound 2 ([0152]).
PNG
media_image12.png
283
779
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 2, the sulfur atoms at the positions corresponding to Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2 does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula I of the instant claims; however, Kinoshita does teach that Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2 can be selenium ([0041]).
Acharya teaches that selenium has larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability than sulfur such that band gap and optical properties can be tuned by replacing sulfur with selenium (page 693, col. 1, lines 10-16).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2 of Kinoshita by substituting the sulfur atoms at the positions corresponding to Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2 with selenium, as taught by Kinoshita and Acharya.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide larger atomic radius, larger dipole moment, larger polarizability, and tunability of band gap and optical properties, based on the teaching of Acharya.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Both S and Se are alternative options for the variables Z41 and Z44 of Formula 2. Substitution of S with Se would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image13.png
192
714
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya, meeting all the limitations of claims 62-65, 67, and 70-71.
Kinoshita does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya; however, Kinoshita does teach that the compound can be used for an organic light emitting device ([0007]). Kinoshita teaches the structure of the OLED device comprising an anode, an emissive layer (a carbazole compound MCP as a host, the compound of Lee as a dopant), and a cathode ([0236], [0239]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by incorporating it into the emissive layer with a host compound of MCP of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Kinoshita.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of dopants of Kinoshita in the OLED of Kinoshita would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya comprising an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 78-79.
Kinoshita does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya; however, Kinoshita does teach that the OLED device can be used for a display device ([0244]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Kinoshita.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of OLED devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. display device) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya, meeting all the limitations of claim 81.
Regarding claim 68, the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The linking group dimethyl methylene at the position corresponding to A21 of Formula 2 of Kinoshita is not oxygen, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Kinoshita does teach A21 can be a divalent linking group ([0047]) and exemplifies oxygen as the divalent linking group (Compound 6 in [0152]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by substituting the dimethyl methylene divalent liking group at position A21 of Formula 2 with oxygen, as taught by Kinoshita.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the divalent linking group with oxygen at position A21 of Formula 2 of Kinoshita would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya (2) which has identical structure as Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya except the dimethyl methylene linking group at position A21 of Formula 2 of Kinoshita is oxygen.
Claims 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 20090079340 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78-79, and 81 above, further in view of Itoh et al. (US 2007/0103060 A1, hereafter Itoh).
Regarding claim 66, the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
PNG
media_image14.png
213
430
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya is directed to the compound of Formula 1 of Kinoshita. The structure at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Kinoshita is a single bond, which does not read on the limitation of the claim; however, Kinoshita does teach that Y2 can be an oxygen atom ([0025]).
Ito discloses a Pt complex comprising a tetradentate ligand and used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0015]).
Incorporation of an oxygen bridge instead of the covalent bond between the ring carbon of the benzene and the central Pt atom in a tetradentate Pt complex is known in the art as taught by Itoh (see examples in [0093] including the following compound).
PNG
media_image15.png
112
201
media_image15.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by substituting the single bond at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Kinoshita with an oxygen bridge, as taught by Kinoshita and Itoh.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the single bond with an oxygen bridge at the position corresponding to Y2 of Formula 1 of Kinoshita would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of bridge structures used as Y2 in Formula 1 of Kinoshita. The selection of oxygen would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya and Itoh.
PNG
media_image16.png
200
827
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 20090079340 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78-79, and 81 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1).
Regarding claim 77, the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 62 as outlined above.
The compound does not comprise any deuterium atom.
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has grater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Kim exemplifies deuterated complex ([0035]) wherein all the hydrogen atom directly bonded to the aromatic and heteroaromatic rings of the N^C ligand (i.e. phenyl pyridine) are substituted by deuterium.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by substituting the hydrogen atoms of the benzothiazole and pyrazole rings of the tetradentate ligand with deuterium, as taught by Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya and Kim which has identical structure as the Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya except all the hydrogen atoms of the benzothiazole and pyrazole rings are substituted by deuterium.
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 20090079340 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (“Effect of Selenium Substitution on Intersystem Crossing in π-Conjugated Donor−Acceptor−Donor Chromophores: The LUMO Matters the Most”, J. Phys. Chem. Letts 2016, vol. 7, page 693-697) as applied to claims 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 78-79, and 81 above, further in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1).
Regarding claim 80, the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya reads on all the features of claim 78 as outlined above.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya comprising an anode, an emissive layer (CBP as a host, Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode.
The host compound CBP does not read on the limitation of claim 80.
Kai discloses an organic light-emitting device wherein the emission layer comprises indolocarbazole derivative compound (formulas (1)-(3) in [0019]). The exemplified compound of Kai (Compound (3) in [0038]).
PNG
media_image7.png
288
572
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kai teaches that the organic light-emitting device of the invention comprising the indolocarbazole derivative compound provides high efficiency with good driving stability ([0018]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya by substituting the host compound of the emissive layer with the Compound (3) of Kai, as taught by Kai.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency with good driving stability, as taught by Kai.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and structure to achieve predictable results.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya and Kai comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound (3) of Kai as a host, Compound of Kinoshita as modified by Acharya as a dopant), and a cathode.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 62-64, 66-67, 69-72, and 78-81 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/662,434 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘434). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 62-64, 66-67, 69-72, and 78-81, Application ‘434 discloses a compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I (claim 1) and exemplifies the following compound (claim 16, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image17.png
340
575
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The Compound A has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I, meeting all the limitations of claims 62-64, 66-67, and 69-72.
Application ‘434 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound A; however, Application ‘434 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprising dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene
PNG
media_image18.png
116
193
media_image18.png
Greyscale
as a host compound (claim 19).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound A of Application ‘434 by incorporating it into an organic light emitting device with a dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene compound as a host, as taught by Application ‘434.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘434 comprising anode, an organic layer (Compound A and dicarbazolyl dibenzothiophene as a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 78-80.
Application ‘434 does not disclose a specific consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘434; however, Application ‘434 does teach that the organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a consumer produce (claim 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘434 by incorporating it into a consumer product, as taught by Application ‘434.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Application ‘434, meeting all the limitations of claims 81.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786